Talk:History of podcasting

Split

This article was split away from the main Podcasting article. --ozzmosis 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was this article split from the original? Now the mother article has a gaping hole in it and wikipedia has noticed. --necropirate —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Move more content?

Shouldn't the "Other Uses" section of the main Podcasting page come over here too? It's another list of "firsts" -- but less significant ones. Sorry, I don't have time to move it myself (or even look up my password and log in). bstepno 8:53, 20 June 2006

Podcasting began to catch hold to the masses in late 2004

What kind of citation is required? I started listening to the Daily Source Code in September 2004 after buying my first iPod and reading about Curry's iPodder AppleScript somewhere on the (mac)web. Maybe slashdot. My point is that there were several posts on different sites about the script at the time. You only have to look at the timeline at the bottom of this page to see late 2004 booming. For example this Inquirer story. 1bj05hua (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Wow... can a contributer to this article please read WP:LEAD? The thing is WAAAYyy too long. Mikker ^(...) 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks

Has anyone else noticed how utter shit this article looks with all that references crap? --202.150.110.106 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy F'Ing Cleanup

Wow, it's been a while since I've seen such a sloppy page, someone really needs to clean through this page, asap.

Is there any actual need to refrence adam curry in the first paragraph of the timeline?? It's not even in any kind of contex, it's just he talked with the guy who created the software he used. If someone can defend him having two refrences in the first parts of this article I would be more than happy to retract my opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.184.78 (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

syndication feed enclosures

What are syndication feed enclosures?...

Syndication Feeds are RSS feeds. RSS Feeds broadcast XML data like Blog posts and the process allows users to subscribe to blogs and podcasts. This data is constantly "pinged" by aggregators or "feed readers". Enclosures are basically like email attachments for these feeds. It allows an individual to attach a file to an RSS feed. Hope that helps. BrianZ^(talk) 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider it Cleaned

There is still some work to be done, but I cleaned the article alot by placing things chronologically instead of jumping all over the place throughout the article. I know some may not prefer a timeline, but there is just too much useful information in this article that a user would be confused without a point of reference. BrianZ^(talk) 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct Capitalization of Mbone

Is it Mbone or MBONE? I've seen it capitalized in this article and others (like Mbone) both ways. Elocina 22:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Leo Laporte

Leo Laporte has been a pioneer in podcasting. Should he have a mention in this article? Yavoh 17:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people have been influential but yes i would agree Leo has been involved quite a bit. Mrsteveman1 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Twit or rev3/diggnation have no mention, leads me to distrust this whole article. They are the biggest players in podcasting at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.121.49 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional References

I wanted to add the following references to this page but could not.

• Blubrry Delivers the Fruits of Social Networking to Podcasters
• Podcast and Portable Media Expo

Also, in March 19, 2007 Wizzard Media closed its acquisition of Libsyn. I am not knowledgable on the subject but a references of this is availble on Wizzard Software's web site: Wizzard Closes Acquisition of Libsyn

Apropos of nothing

Radio Free Cybertron was distributing user-generated content in a proto-podcast format as early as 1999. Not sure if that warrants a mention here or not, but it was definitely one of the earliest non-commercial uses of the technology that I know of. 24.30.97.198 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-technical History of Podcasting

Podcasting is important for reasons other than its technical innovation. This article is basically a history of RSS-enclosed mp3 files and not a all-inclusive history of podcasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.244.164.254 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline significantly filtered

This article now reads like a press release for a few companies and individuals that have made the most noise. It is missing many of the individual efforts that have been recognized - Leo Laporte, Lance Anderson and others. History should remember these efforts.Laetus007 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree. The edits I made -- which are still insufficient -- were intended to cull out trivia items in favor of the more important items that give readers an idea of how podcasting grew as a technology, as a media and as a cultural phenomenon.

I took out items like the Lance Anderson one because they don't have any substantial impact. A good indicator of this is the source's description of the event, which they seem to say was notable not because it was the first podcast, but because it was the first show that was:

• mulitnational;
• trans-Atlantic;
• real-time;
• live-stream;
• with an eventual downloadable podcast; and
• with an eventual DVD.

I don't see what makes this any more notable than the first show that was non-mulitnational, trans-Atlantic, real-time, streamed live, with an eventual downloadable podcast and DVD; or the first show that was mulitnational, but not trans-Atlantic, real-time, streamed live, with an eventual downloadable podcast and DVD; or the first show that was mulitnational, trans-Atlantic, tape-delayed, streamed live, with an eventual downloadable podcast and DVD; and the first show that was mulitnational, trans-Atlantic, edited, with an eventual downloadable podcast and DVD; and then the first show that was mulitnational, trans-Atlantic, real-time, streamed live, with an eventual downloadable podcast but no DVD.

I don't personally care one way or another whether history recognizes the efforts of Lance Anderson or any other podcaster, but you may be comforted to know the Anderson's contributions have been memorialized elsewhere on Wikipedia.

—Bdb484 (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is where the question of how knowledge and history are remembered. Who are you to singularly decide what is important and not important? I do care that the efforts of individuals like Leo Laporte and Lance Anderson are remembered. It was more that this individual did a mixed-media event that attempted to connect two places in the world (UK and Los Angeles),broadcast it, and podcast it. When I read that article in Podcast User Magazine both in April and in March, I was inspired by the grassroots efforts of this medium to truly connect through space and time. The way the timeline reads now prefaces heavily the commercialization of this art form. With the amount of times you list Curry, you should also be listing how Curry's efforts lead to the shady company Podshow and their questionable contract . . with maybe a highlight of their brand re-imaging to mevio and the destruction of many popular podcasts along the way. And having Ricky Gervais listed . . .I understand you might care for him because he is a big star, but it is depressing to think that this page is a celebration of the commercialization of this art form on the laurels of someone who was already commercial. (And it is not just that entry.) He (and Curry for that matter) took the most logical next step to fill the coffers. We can even go to say that I question the validity of the claim that Gervais' show is the most downloaded just because Guinness says so. It's been the efforts of everyone that have raised this media to the height that it is now and it should be recognized.

Laetus007 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with almost every sentence you've written. Especially the last one. If you really want to recognize the efforts of "everyone" who has raised podcasting to its current height, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Podcast User Magazine seems like a better place.

It should be noted that I don't care about:

• Ricky Gervais (I had to click through to figure out who he was);
• Curry (still don't know who he is);
• Lance Anderson; or
• the history of podcasting in general.

What I do care about is keeping Wikipedia in good shape, and sometimes taking a machete to the clutter. It's possible that the Lance Anderson Podcast Experiment was groundbreaking and influential, but it sounds to me like you're a little too emotionally attached to make an objective decision on that. It's fine that it inspired you, but that doesn't make it worth noting in an encyclopedia anymore than VH1's Behind the Music: Def Leppard deserves to be mentioned in the history of television because I was watching it when I decided I wanted to be a journalist.

If this event were actually significant, I suspect it would be a lot easier to find a reliable soucre saying so. Instead, Google turns up about 40 unique results on Google, and zero results in Lexis.

If you want to put some content on Lance Anderson Podcast Experiment, I promise not to recommend it for deletion.

—Bdb484 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the patent application "irrelevent trivia?" As a couple of examples the Sertraline article mentions the patent expiring and the Monopoly article mentions when the patent was awarded. The Coffee_cup_sleeve, Drinking_straw, Sewing Machine all mention their patents and 2 of those were over 100 years ago. I understand the desire to keep the history section from being a "who's who" of podcasting section, but a patent could change the whole medium and is certainly relevant to a history section. I'm reversing your last edit. Please discuss before removing it again. Cubbieco (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that patents are relevant to their respective articles, but VoloMedia does not have a patent on podcasting. Rather, they have a patent on one of many, many, many means of providing podcasts to users. That is why mention of the patent is included at Volomedia's article. This is not a development that -- as far as I can tell -- has had any impact on the history of podcasting, which is the subject of this article. I don't see anything here, or in the Volomedia article that makes any claim about how the company or its product has any historical significance. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not VoloMedia does, or does not have a "patent on podcasting" is, I think, a matter of personal opinion at this time. Google now has 4500 hits on "patent on podcasting"+VoloMedia, so somebody sure thought it notable. The sources say that VoloMedia is already in talks with Apple, as far as I know one of the largest distributors of podcasts. Therefore I think this patent and its place in the time line is significant. --Thorseth (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

MIDI for distribution of audio and video files - really?

From section Precursors: "Before online music digital distribution, the MIDI format as well as the Mbone, Multicast Network was used to distribute audio and video files.". Can MIDI really be used to distribute audio and video files? --Mortense (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if you do not have a clue what MIDI is. I have yet to see a .mid file that included video, and MIDI files such as .mid are only command lists for synthesizers. To say MIDI distributes audio is like saying CNC distributes tools. Kid Bugs (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ref list tidy-up

I'm proposing to tidy up the references in this article. I'd like to do the following:

• Make them consistent with the format of {{cite web}}, but not necessarily use the template where the format is already close.
• Use consistent date formats:
  • MDY dates in full for publication and access / retrieved date (i.e. May 5, 2014)
  • YYYY-MM-DD dates for archived dates.

Anyone happy / unhappy with this?--Otus scops (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)